Talk:Wasted spark system

Fuel Economy

Does this have an appreciable effect on fuel economy? Ratsbew (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

- No, shouldn't affect fuel economy in a meaningful sense, yes, you are using more energy to spark the plugs more often, but considering other things that could impact the economy this is negligible Waterppk (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Emissions

I think the line that says this reduces engine out emissions is BS, if you had enough fuel in the air mixture to burn on the exhaust compression stroke with a single simple spark you would be literally pouring combustible mixture out your exhaust, that doesn't happen on modern engines! Waterppk (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. This is complete B. S. with no references. Vote to remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.96.174 (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Half the ignition components?

How can this statement be true? Doesn't it still need a rotor, points, capacitor, cap?Longinus876 (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but if you have one system per cylinder (not too unusual, for distributorless systems), a wasted spark system only requires one system (coil, contacts, capacitor) per pair of cylinders. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC

Its not true. Modern cars that don't use a waste spark system just have a cam sensor to determine cam position. In every other way they are the same. In fact waste spark is phased out in modern cars as the EPA is requiring 100,000 mile spark plug change intervals and the extra spark is known to reduce plug life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertGary1 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"Its not true."

What's not true?

"Modern cars that don't use a waste spark system"

Who claimed they do?

PS - EPA only applies to the USA. Now many car makers sell to the USA (far more than US cars sold outside the US), but EPA are far from being the only game in town. US car designers certainly aren't leading developments in engine efficiency or emissions. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

why on a mazda the crankshaft have four reference marks for the crankshaft sensor

Removes the requirement for a distributor???

That comment seems to be nonsense since every other distributorless ignition system today doesn't seem to need a distributor. I'm going to change it to read "Does not require a cam position sensor" since that is the actual reduction in parts. --RobertGary1 (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That's nonsense, I've reverted it. The HT distributor is no longer required, but a source of timing for the LT side of the coil (such as a crank position sensor) is still required. Plug-top coils also remove the need for distributors, but there are still plenty of cars around using distributors. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Than why is it that the majority of distributorless ignition systems are not waste spark? Your argument makes no sense. The only difference between a waste spark system and other distributorless ignition system is the lack of a cam sensor (I didn't say crank sensor). BTW: Your comment about there being lots of distributor system around is totally untrue in the United States. — --15.211.201.81 (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.211.201.81 (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Wasted spark systems (which have never been common, and were rare on anything other than opposed two cylinder four-strokes) still need a timing sensor to trigger the spark. This needs to come from the cam or crank position. Usually this is done from the crank, because measuring it at the flywheel radius is more accurate. Taking it from the crank usually needs a phase signal too, to identify which stroke is which, but obviously not needed on a wasted spark system.

You say that wasted spark systems don't have cam or crank sensors: so, citation please.

PS - Even out in the 3rd world beyond the USA, we have cars too. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

No, you missed what I said. My point is that you've presented false choice logic. The choice is not between distributors and waste spark. In fact the majority of new vehicles today do not have distributors and do not use waste spark. So its not an either or. Either way, your statement is uncited. Wikipedia guidelines require uncited statements to be deleted until a citation can be found. --RobertGary1 (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S. If you want to add it back in, make sure you provide the reference. Otherwise we'll be force to lock this article to require a moderate to verify references before you make additions.--RobertGary1 (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

There are (broadly) three ways to produce an ignition system, that have been used in large volumes in recent decades.

• Coil, breaker and distributor. By far the most common until 2000
• Wasted spark systems. Never common. Only really offering an advantage for simple flat twins, maybe flat fours. The 2CV is surely the most widely used of these, or there might be a Chinese tractor I'm unaware of.
• Plug-top coils. Since the 1980s, but common today (actually they date from around 1900, but weren't widely used). Perhaps now the most common (I don't have the numbers), but not an exclusive system for either cars in use today, or cars manufactured today.

There are still lots of distributor systems around in the United States.

The advantage of the wasted spark system is that it removes the need for a HT distributor. This is an advantage relative to the earlier distributor systems, because they're what was in production at the time. Plug top coils were not a credible alternative at the time. At the time the 2CV was developed, the plastics industry was immature too and HT distributors were a serious problem for poor starting in Winter.

It is a constructed nonsense to compare wasted spark systems to plug-top coils. The two systems were not in development at the same time (by some decades) and there is no direct comparison between them. There might be some recent snowmobile engine where this was a realistic question, but not in the 2CV vintage. It is tautological to say, "every other distributorless ignition system today doesn't seem to need a distributor." and it's foolish to say that wasted spark systems don't remove a distributor compared to plug-top systems when one pre-dates the other by 30+ years.

Perhaps it's true that the choice isn't between distributors and wasted spark, but at the time wasted spark systems were developed it was; these were the only two credible options.

When lecturing others on WP policy, it's best to have a few thousand edits at least. Or at least a few hundred. As you might not be familiar with where to complain to get a "moderate" to lock the article, then you might want WP:RFPP or WP:ANI. Have fun. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why you started talking about top coil. In anycase, you keep violated policy by using uncited opionion. You're violating policy. If you were familiar with Wikipedia you would know that the solution is simple, you'd just need to find a citation. I'll go ahead and help you by removing the uncited opinion to give you some time to locate you source. Let me know if you require any other assistance. --RobertGary1 (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

So what is your point here? That wasted spark systems have a HT distributor? Or that contemporary ignition systems also don't need a HT distributor? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)